Oprah, H and M.

[lapisamethyst]

Are they considered close friends? And Gayle, Oprah's bestie, is she still on side H&M...she appears to have gone quiet.
Or has the now known lies from their Oprah interview changed their friendship I wonder?
It all seemed so pally but did it stand the test of time?

That was reported by papers who claimed Meghan wrote that to Charles, a letter conveniently "leaked" to make Charles look good ahead of the Coronation and eliminate him from "suspicion". Just one of the many "Olive Branches" we were told of breathlessly in the run up to it. Funny how there are no more "olive branches" now that the whole thing is over. Incidentally, Meghan clapped back hard at that leat, and said she was not thinking about any correspondence that may have taken place years ago, but was living her life in the present.

What the world heard, directly, in his own words, was Harry say he was shocked at the comment, and that he would never reveal who it was who said it because it would be bad for them.

That tells me all I need to know -- that it was a a pretty awful remark to make.

But sure, go on defending it.

Today the comment section of the Daily Mail is defending the recently convicted Neo-Nazis for expressing the view that "Archie is an abomination". Because apparently that is "what most people in Britain think" according to them.

So Mumsnetters defending racist statements is something that does not surprise me at all.

Yes, exactly.

Re: Oprah, it’s laughable to say anything bad about her. She is a powerhouse. Watched her show in its earliest days when I was a kid at home in the summers.

No one here knows who leaked the Charles letter or why. Could equally have been Meghan in the run up to the coronation to get herself headlines. Strange how she always stages something that gets headlines when the RF have a major event. Pathetic really.

I've never heard anyone defend any statement around the colour of the baby's skin. It was crass and ignorant. We only have meghans assertion it was to do with how dark it was anyway and that was as part of a larger lie. It's obvious that the children would be light skin in most instances so why say something like that is beyond me.

Tom Bower said camilla made a joke that the baby may have brown skin and ginger hair but how true no one except harry and the speaker know Meghan as usual has spun it to suit their victim narrative.

As for a bunch of neo nazis saying they represent the UK well good luck with that as persuasive argument brits are racist.

Demanding your brother and father apologise to your wife before any resolution of differences is hardly an olive branch. I've seen no indication of one.

So, you expect me to take Tom Bower seriously while at the same time trashing Oprah Winfrey. Thanks for the laugh.

But you are right about one thing. Meghan ALWAYS manages to stage something when the RF has an event. It is pretty pathetic.

For instance, she gave birth to her first child on the day that was chosen, four years later, for his grandfather's coronation. What a bitch. How dare she give birth on a day that she could not have known was to be Charles's coronation day? Who the fUck does she think she is?

And of course more recently, she somehow went back in time to 4July 1776, and got the US Congress to adopt the Declaration of Independence from the British Crown, making the 4th of July an American independence holiday since then, all so that she could go to an independence parade on the same day that Charles had his yawnfest of a Scottish coronation.

What a bitch.

So manipulative, clearly manipulating space and time as well and going back in time like that, just to upstage the royals.

The only comment I have seen published - including by Harry - is that William suggested he (Harry) slow down the relationship. Which seems quite sensible to me, they got engaged and then married very quickly. Even if they had similar backgrounds, taking time to get to know each other would have been sensible, even mmore so given they came from very different cultures.

Luckily they have been able to work through different backgrounds, beliefs, and expectations and are very happy together. But most couples would find it a challenge.

No one here knowswho leaked the Charles letter or why. Could equally have been Meghan in the run up to the coronation to get herself headlines. Strange how she always stages something that gets headlines when the RF have a major event. Pathetic really.

Why say no one here knows, then say Meghan staged it? Rather contradictory would you not think?

@MrsMaxDeWinter She's very clever, delaying the birth or bringing on the birth of her first child on the day she guessed the Coronation would be. All to upstage the Royal Family. Mystic Meg indeed!

What a strange suggestion.

The only posts I have seen on Charles coronation date is by people saying it is disgraceful that he chose Archie's birthday (ignoring all the factors that go into finding a date all the key player could make).

I haven't seen anything about the Scottish coronation

sorry, are by, not is by...

She is the devil herself @Roussette

And of course she forces the entire press in the UK to write about her because somehow all of the press in the UK is controlled by her. I mean, it's not like the papers could choose to make other Royals the headline, right.

No, it's evil Meg and her time travelling manipulation who forces the press to write about her child's birthday when there is the first coronation in 70 years to focus on. She forces grown men and women to trawl through archives of her old blog, just to have a headline about her. I mean, Camilla Tominey is watching the weather in Montecito just to write about her lawn, and that is Meghan's fault entirely.

And yet all the posts on MN were about how evil Charles was for DELIBERATELY insulting his grandchild by having the coronation on Archie's birthday...

@Milcar

The Royal threads are on the whole anti-Meghan, with the exception of a few posters who make a valiant effort to bring balance, so that would surprise me very much. My recollection of the threads about the Coronation where of posters sneering that Archie's birthday was nothing special, that Meghan should not come to the Coronation because she was not welcome and then, when she chose not to come, slamming her for not coming.

I guess the Queen (or was it Kate, or a courtier, or all three) was right to say recollections may vary.

On this thread, for example Page 6 | Why is Charles disappointed Archie and Lillibet not coming? | Mumsnet where a number of posters seemed convinced that the date was chosen to insult Archie

Let’s be clear here MrsMaxDeWinter. Are you genuinely insinuating that because I have referred to Harry’s own words, and those reported to be his, and nothing else that my personal views are akin to those of convicted Neo-Nazis?

Because I don’t think that is remotely acceptable or appropriate. I genuinely do not know how posters like you get away with such conduct.

Not true. ALL the posts did not say that. I, for starters, disagreed with that view saying the right date for the Coronation would've been really difficult to plan

So, no all the posts didn't say that

The 'sneering' - from what I can see, is posters responding to accusations that the date was chosen deliberately to attack Harry and Meghan, because it was Archie's birthday. So posters responded to point out that his constitutional importance was minimal, so his birthday wouldn't be factored in compared to the availability of various national and international leaders.

Not that it wouldn't be important to Archie and his parents

MrsMaxDeWinter

It was said in the context of someone trying to dissuade Harry from continuing his relationship with Meghan.

Was it?
I haven't listened to the Oprah interview, just seen/read extracts but I didn't think that was the case.

(If the only way I'll find out is to watch the whole interview, I'll put up with not knowing. I waste enough time on the RF here, I realise.)

My apologies. I overstated the case. There were a number of posters pointing out that Archie's birthday was not relevant in selecting the date of the coronation.

And a small group of posters insisting that it was a deliberate snub.

Hence other posters pointing out that other factors outweighed a four year old's birthday, especially when that four-yesr-old (very special to his parents) was not significant constitutionally.

Perhaps try reading my post again, which I am happy to break down.

I have said commentators on the DM website (which are anonymous, just like on Mumsnet) are defending the Neo Nazi comments about Archie as being "what people in Britain think".

I then said it does not surprise me when Mumsnetters defend (and here I will add, minimise) racism.

Because if even Neo Nazis can be defended on the basis that they are only stating "what most British people think" then there is no hope.

I have not once said you @Serenster defended Neo Nazis, how could I when you haven't?

The comment that is about you directly is that you cut off the rest of what Harry said. Harry was very clear in attributing that comment to unconscious bias which, unaddressed, become racism. You left out that part. In the interview itself, he also said he was so shocked he would never reveal who said it.

I hope that is clear now.

No, that was not at all insinuated by Harry. His body language and facial expressions were interesting when Meghan repeated her version of his own first hand experience, though.

I won’t encourage you to watch it though as I completely understand the sentiment.

The neo-nazi’s were convicted.

I am not sure how DM posters are relevant to MN posters? Unless you are implying that it is the same group of people?

I think Harry should detail what was said, and by whom. These vague insinuations are not healthy for anyone.

I think they achieved exactly what they wanted handling it the way they did.

Yes, they were convicted.

And there are comments on the DM saying the conviction is a violation of their free speech because they are saying "what most British people think".

Such is the dislike for Meghan that some are even willing to support the rights of Neo-Nazis to attack a child.

Similarly, such as is the dislike of Meghan that many are willing to defend the kind of sexism directed at her by Jeremy Clarkson.

The pattern is pretty clear I think. For a worrying number of people, anything goes when it comes to Meghan. Even defending Neo Nazis.

The hideous convicted neo nazi duo were racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti Islamic, antisemitic and a dozen other isms.

And yet we are accused of defending them? I tick 2 of those boxes so I hardly think so.